-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
4p
- Thread starter Big.Wayne
- Start date
- Status
I'm sorry but intel just can not compete at that price point and if you only need to drive 10miles away through city where the max speed you can go is 25-30mph you don't need to buy a Ferrari or Bugatti ? It's not like you gonna drive 200mph in trafic ? Because that's exactly what you're trying to do when browsing net and playing cod4 on i7 OCed to 4ghz.
I like that analogy
I like that analogy
Me too.
I have a little pro-AMD bias, but comparing the Athlon II x4 620 to the i7 920 is not a like-for-like comparison.
Why not pick the Phenom II x4 instead?
I think more damning for Intel is the fact that their i3 pricing starts at £100, and those chips are facing stiff competition from the Athlon II x3 at half the price...
Why not pick the Phenom II x4 instead?
I think more damning for Intel is the fact that their i3 pricing starts at £100, and those chips are facing stiff competition from the Athlon II x3 at half the price...
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,769
- Location
- Planet Earth
The OP is showing that the Athlon II X4 has decent performance for the price compared to a high end computer.
Even if you are getting 70FPS in a game with a Core i7 based computer and 50FPS in a much cheaper Athlon II based computer the game is still playable.
The Phenom II X4 is still more expensive and in many cases there is no real advantage it has over a Athlon II X4 in tasks which are not sensitive to L3 cache. Games do seem to run faster on an a Phenom II but still an Athlon II based computer can produce good framerates especially if the Athlon II is overclocked.
This comparison is quite useful to read:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=105&p2=81
Last edited:
Wow i never knew such a tool existed, kudos for bringing this to my attention.
Interesting!
Looks like there isn't much in it given my E8500 at stock loses out slightly to a Athlon II X4 at similar clocks in terms of encoding, and wins in terms of gaming.
So it at 4Ghz is very powerful, and the next logical move would be to a 775 quad and wait til the next gen of cpus/mobos, lol!
Big.Wayne, I see your 425 is blazing along at 3.6, a nice overclock
I'm almost certain now I'll be buying an x3 for myself - would you recommend the 425, the 435 or the 440 if buying now?
I don't know if your x3 is an early model, and was really a phenom in disguise? Or is it a proper Rana core?
From what I've seen, the price difference between the 425 and the 440 is only £10... why'd you opt for the 425 over the 435?
I'm almost certain now I'll be buying an x3 for myself - would you recommend the 425, the 435 or the 440 if buying now?
I don't know if your x3 is an early model, and was really a phenom in disguise? Or is it a proper Rana core?
From what I've seen, the price difference between the 425 and the 440 is only £10... why'd you opt for the 425 over the 435?
Well on stock it's 2.6ghz vs 3.16ghz which makes quite a lot of diff but yes, e8500 is still an excellent CPU and I'd say the next upgrade you should consider is good SSD and GPU. Or ditch your stuff while it's still worth lots of moneys and get free or almost free upgrade to AM3, as much as you aren't going for a great deal of performance upgrade, you will have new platform to play around with and possibility to upgrade to whatever new stuff comes out : ).
Or like you said just smack in a 775 quad and that should do you for the next few yrs : ).
Big.Wayne, I see your 425 is blazing along at 3.6, a nice overclock
I'm almost certain now I'll be buying an x3 for myself - would you recommend the 425, the 435 or the 440 if buying now?
I don't know if your x3 is an early model, and was really a phenom in disguise? Or is it a proper Rana core?
From what I've seen, the price difference between the 425 and the 440 is only £10... why'd you opt for the 425 over the 435?
Those aren't out yet in europe but it's interesting, I've been looking at some early benchs and both 635 and 440 hit 3.6ghz on stock volts and can be pushed for 3.8-3.9 in the right hands, they even managed to get 4.1 but not bench stable tho, on the other hand I see it doable under water : ).
Hope the prices aren't too high as in US they're priced as low as 119$ for 635 and 89$ for 440 !!
I wouldn't mind a 3.8ghz tri core for 64.99 really : ).
OCUK Can you hear us ? Stock some 440s, 635s and and 910e's ? I'm definitely getting one !
Yep found it as well just now, even better, looks like the price drops hit some places already too !!
I just found the 435 at an amazing 56gbp !
On the other hand I think I will wait for the 555BE and see how that looks too as they're on the new c3 stepping.
If they're under 70quid I'll be getting one : O.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,769
- Location
- Planet Earth
The X2 550BE is around £70 and the X2 555BE seems to be around £80. Give it a few weeks and hopefully the price of the X2 555BE will drop a bit.
I got here a bit late for easy's F1 analogy but I think it was a pretty good one. Bang for buck is not often the same as the best you can afford, as there isn't a continuous scale, and the most you can afford tends to be flexible.
If you can spend £500 on the cpu/mb/ram, but only benefit from the performance of a £300 amd system, then you have to choose between a £500 system or a £300 one which achieve much the same thing.
It doesn't follow directly from this that you'd be a fool to get the £500 one. You may wish to postpone upgrades for a considerable time period, like those who bought the Q6600 on release years ago. You may have just found a good price on the X58 i7. Or you may have enough disposable income that £200 just doesn't mean very much. Perhaps wife limited rather than career limited.
There's also a valid point that comparing a £500 x58 build to a £250 amd one was never going to make all that much sense. Fastest build possible for £250 and a different fastest build possible for £500 would be more useful, and I think amd would dominate some price points and intel others. At £600 it's going to be Intel by default, as amd doesn't have anything fast enough to sell at that price. Concluding from this that Intel is better only makes sense if you're going to spend over £600 on the core of the system.
However arguing over performance possible for £50, £100, £150 .... £750 would 1/take ages and 2/results would change almost daily. What Wayne has done is pick the high end of each, note that the AMD costs a lot less, but that it is still overkill for most peoples uses. If the price gap was less the force of his argument would be less and more people would continue blindly buying the X58 system when it's completely inappropriate for their uses. If he compares the amd quad with a similarly priced intel quad, readers will conclude that there isn't much difference, so no reason to buy amd, and end up just buying x58 anyway.
If you can spend £500 on the cpu/mb/ram, but only benefit from the performance of a £300 amd system, then you have to choose between a £500 system or a £300 one which achieve much the same thing.
It doesn't follow directly from this that you'd be a fool to get the £500 one. You may wish to postpone upgrades for a considerable time period, like those who bought the Q6600 on release years ago. You may have just found a good price on the X58 i7. Or you may have enough disposable income that £200 just doesn't mean very much. Perhaps wife limited rather than career limited.
There's also a valid point that comparing a £500 x58 build to a £250 amd one was never going to make all that much sense. Fastest build possible for £250 and a different fastest build possible for £500 would be more useful, and I think amd would dominate some price points and intel others. At £600 it's going to be Intel by default, as amd doesn't have anything fast enough to sell at that price. Concluding from this that Intel is better only makes sense if you're going to spend over £600 on the core of the system.
However arguing over performance possible for £50, £100, £150 .... £750 would 1/take ages and 2/results would change almost daily. What Wayne has done is pick the high end of each, note that the AMD costs a lot less, but that it is still overkill for most peoples uses. If the price gap was less the force of his argument would be less and more people would continue blindly buying the X58 system when it's completely inappropriate for their uses. If he compares the amd quad with a similarly priced intel quad, readers will conclude that there isn't much difference, so no reason to buy amd, and end up just buying x58 anyway.
Yep the main point here is that most people don't need anything faster and if you aren't going to use it then why waste money?
Few weeks ago I've bought a cheapo p4 system for my mom's internet browsing box. Ofcourse I could get her an am3, 775 or even i7 setup but whats the point ? It's not like her e-mail box or skype is going to load any faster on i7!
If you get what I mean : ).
------------------------------------
Anyways back to cheapo am3 builds.
http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-10735-view-Athlon-II-X3-435-unlocked-performance.html
Just found this and I'm quite suprised because according to that review it looks like all those x3 rana cores are actually the same as phenom II denebs - it's the same chip just with L3 cache and cores disabled !?!?
NICE ONE AMD !
I wonder if you can unlock the x2 240 to 6mb l3 cache quad core haha..
I will be getting the 555BE after all tho, just for some unlocked multi OC fun
.Let me ask you a question, out of these two chips which do you think is better from a performance point of view?
I can't say I've seen a comparison myself (although I'm sure they are out there) but my gut feeling is its chip #2, it is the big daddy right? . . . is that right or not? . . . have I assumed wrongly that chip number #2 offers superior performance levels in almost every way to chip #1
- Intel® Core™ i3
- Intel® Core™ i7
Yes , and your point is?
Why have you not put chip #2 next to the AMD Phenom II X4 Quad Core 965?
You didn't did you?
What you should have done is put
The Phenom II against the i7
The Athlon X4 against the i5 750
This would have demonstrated something.
Intel Flagship against AMD Flagship
Intel midrange agaisnt AMD Mid range
This thread is garbage.
Last edited:
BS
This clocks to 4ghz + and 50 quid more gets you a i5 750 trashing that AMD spec in its path.
BS
and if you only need to drive 10miles away through city where the max speed you can go is 25-30mph you don't need to buy a Ferrari or Bugatti ? It's not like you gonna drive 200mph in trafic ? Because that's exactly what you're trying to do when browsing net and playing cod4 on i7 OCed to 4ghz
BS
Yeah My point totally in this thread.
For the same price I can buy an i3 rig and spank that Athlon II x4 at the smae price
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 947
I think this thread is going wayward again.
The point being for the average person, a chip such as theX4 620 is ample, and questions the need for such person to fork out the difference for an i7 -> i.e is it worth it for them(probably not really).
In all true honesty, this forum is full of enthusiasts wanting the best they can get by majority, hence (I believe) ignoring the point Wayne is trying to highlight:- the fact we ignore midrange cpu's because they dont stack up to those so-called "flagships", even though for most people, they are likely more than adequate for their usage.
The point being for the average person, a chip such as theX4 620 is ample, and questions the need for such person to fork out the difference for an i7 -> i.e is it worth it for them(probably not really).
In all true honesty, this forum is full of enthusiasts wanting the best they can get by majority, hence (I believe) ignoring the point Wayne is trying to highlight:- the fact we ignore midrange cpu's because they dont stack up to those so-called "flagships", even though for most people, they are likely more than adequate for their usage.
- Status